ILNews

Supreme Court addresses protective orders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court released two opinions today regarding the service of protective orders to respondents.

In Richard Joslyn v State of Indiana, No. 49S04-1102-CR-85, the Supreme Court held that a “minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by (Richard) Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial.” Because of this, the court affirmed Joslyn’s convictions of Class C felony stalking and four counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, which were all based on violations of the protective order.

In Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1005-CR-256, the court reversed Jeffrey Tharp’s conviction of invasion of privacy. In that case, the court wrote that “proof of knowledge must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of oral notice in this case, however, is insufficient to sustain Tharp’s conviction.”

Joslyn claimed he was not properly served with his protective order that had been filed by Stephanie Livingston. A deputy with the Marion County Sheriff’s Department served Joslyn with a copy of the protective order by attaching it to a door at his home. However, under Indiana Trial Rule 4.1 (B), a copy of the order was also to be sent via first class mail. There was no indication this took place.

But at trial, the court admitted a recording and transcript of Joslyn's statement to police where he stated he knew there was a restraining order and that he found it at his residence, even if he was somewhat unclear regarding the date the order was received. The incidents in question, including a note left on the front porch of the home where Livingston was staying, four broken windows to Livingston’s friend’s vehicle, and Joslyn hiding in the crawl space where Livingston lived, took place after the protective order was served.

“We agree with the Court of Appeals that Joslyn’s admission of receipt is sufficient to sustain his convictions,” wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. “As the court noted, the purpose of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act is to promote the protection and safety of all victims of domestic violence and prevent future incidents. It would run contrary to this purpose if we were to embrace Joslyn’s contention that a defendant does not violate the criminal code because of some defect in civil process even where the court had in fact issued a protective order and the defendant in fact knew it had done so.”

Chief Justice Shepard also addressed the importance of protective orders to prevent domestic violence in the Joslyn opinion.

“The declared legislative intent that these provisions in the Code be interpreted in a way that will ‘promote the: protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and [the] prevention of future domestic and family violence,’” he wrote. “Joslyn’s proposed rule that one who acknowledges actual receipt at his home but not an additional copy by mail commits no violation would have real world implications placing far too many Hoosiers at risk of becoming a domestic violence statistic.”

In Tharp, however, it was not as clear as to whether the respondent was aware of the protective order against him.

When officers pulled Tharp’s car over during a traffic stop Feb. 16, 2009, they found the woman who filed a protection order against him on Oct. 1, 2008, Lisa Pitzer, and her daughter, among the passengers in the vehicle.

When officers ran Tharp’s information through a computer records check, they learned about the protective order, as well as the existence of an active warrant for Tharp for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and that his license was suspended.

On Feb. 18, 2009, Pitzer filed a request for dismissal of the protective order and the court granted her request the same day.

At trial, Tharp denied he was ever served with the order or that Pitzer ever told him about it, and he denied that he told the officers that he was aware of the order. A return of service for the order indicated the service attempt had failed because he had moved.

In her testimony, Pitzer said she had told Tharp about the order when they got back together, a few months after she filed the order in October 2008. She also testified that she told him prior to the February 2009 traffic stop, but that she also thought she had the order dismissed prior to that time.

“…was there substantial evidence of probative value from which a finder of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Tharp knowingly violated a protective order? We conclude that the mixed messages from Pitzer are oral notice of the type that is insufficient for a conviction. Put another way, the evidence is insufficient that Tharp received adequate notice of the protective order,” Chief Justice Shepard wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT